RE :”No. Im one of those sane persons who calls a spade a spade. Something apparently beyond your RINO abilitie”

You seem to take it personally that someone would be mad that Angle and Akin helped Obama and Reid keep the Senate. What is your connection to those losers? I mean do you like what Obama and Reid are doing? You act like it.

52
posted on 02/05/2013 7:45:38 PM PST
by sickoflibs
(Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)

I financially supported each of them, as well as Cruz, whom you apparently think is fine.

Each of these people, including Akin, stood for lower taxes and a limited government. The fact that any of them lost their election does not equate to their supporters believing “stupid stuff.”

What it does prove is that cowards run from those who support their core beliefs if a candidate makes a single misstatement on an ancillary topic that the MSM blows out of proportion. Well, either that is true, or perhaps those people who most promote a rational economic theory such as Austrian economics are otherwise devoid of rational thought elsewhere in their lives.

RE :”I financially supported each of them, as well as Cruz, whom you apparently think is fine. Each of these people, including Akin, stood for lower taxes and a limited government. The fact that any of them lost their election does not equate to their supporters believing stupid stuff.

The difference between Cruz and those two crackpots you claim you gave money to (and still cant learn the obvious) is that Akin and Angle blew easy elections for no valid reason, just being stupid.

It doesnt matter if you like what you thought they stand for because they are not in office, in the Senate, Reid and that hog are in the Senate instead of them because they are so stupid they lost easy wins for no good reason.

If you are going to give money to losers like them you might as well be honest with yourself and become a Democrat.

I am sick-of-those-who-help-libs.

55
posted on 02/05/2013 8:20:10 PM PST
by sickoflibs
(Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)

RE :”What it does prove is that cowards run from those who support their core beliefs if a candidate makes a single misstatement on an ancillary topic that the MSM blows out of proportion.”

Because Obama and Reid are destroying this country and Angle, Akin and Mourdock were key to getting him where they are now. Romney did the same as them with his 47%. He is the same as them in my eyes, a loser.

If you love O you should love them. I don't. Following losers just gets you more losing. And many really want that, they love the cult feeling of bathing in victim hood and endless losing and 'everyone against us'. They cant get enough of it.

Your accusing me of being a Romney supporter was very entertaining. Better yet a Rover supporter, yep, I just look back fondly at GWB era , right guys ???? LOL

57
posted on 02/05/2013 8:38:06 PM PST
by sickoflibs
(Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)

They lost and with others who lost who were supported by Rove, we lost control of the Senate.

Boy, I can't wait for you to tell us of the idiots you've supported, by vote or by pocketbook, so we can call you ‘someone who helps losers and whom ought to just become a Democrat.”

Oh, wait, I'll bet that all the people you've supported actually did win. Which is why you must be happy with O’s re-election, right RINO? I mean, you couldn't have been stupid and supported a loser like Romney, right? I mean, the election was “in the bag” for Romney if you believed Rove, et al, so, surely you didn't support Romney, right?

They lost and with others who lost who were supported by Rove, we lost control of the Senate.

Boy, I can't wait for you to tell us of the idiots you've supported, by vote or by pocketbook, so we can call you ‘someone who helps losers and whom ought to just become a Democrat.”

Oh, wait, I'll bet that all the people you've supported actually did win. Which is why you must be happy with O’s re-election, right RINO? I mean, you couldn't have been stupid and supported a loser like Romney, right? I mean, the election was “in the bag” for Romney if you believed Rove, et al, so, surely you didn't support Romney, right?

RE :”Boy, I can't wait for you to tell us of the idiots you've supported, by vote or by pocketbook, so we can call you someone who helps losers and whom ought to just become a Democrat.

IF you supported them at some time before their loss that is one thing. But your defending them afterward is another, it means you either cant accept reality or you are a covert Dem paid by MSNBC to help Dems win elections.

60
posted on 02/05/2013 8:45:03 PM PST
by sickoflibs
(Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)

You accuse me of “following losers” by supporting those that lost PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. My question to you is, how does one get your time machine so that you can know in advance, who the losers are you aren't supposed to be supporting?

In my world, you help those who are in positions capable of supporting one’s favorite causes. Supporting those who demonstrate their beliefs are true and those who are not likely to fall into the political machine and lose themselves, should be important. Each of these you lambaste, including Cruz, fit that criteria. However, Cruz won in a conservative state, and for this, you are proud to say you support him.

If the person can win their state's primary, that already helps prove they have much of the capacity to win in the general election. That should be enough for most.

Unless one can get in “sickoflibs” time machine. Then you can be assured of only helping "winners".

RE :”You accuse me of following losers by supporting those that lost PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. My question to you is, how does one get your time machine so that you can know in advance, who the losers are you aren't supposed to be supporting?”

IF you supported them at some time before their loss that is one thing. But your defending them afterward is another, it means you either cant accept reality and learn from your mistakes or you are a covert Dem paid by MSNBC to help Dems win elections.

62
posted on 02/05/2013 8:59:10 PM PST
by sickoflibs
(Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)

Sickoflibs is basically right. I'll cut Angle a little slack because she was a political neophyte. Akin and Mourdock were not. They blew easy election wins because they provided the jaw-droppingly stupid sound byte to allow the RAT b*st*rds to make the election about abortions for rape exceptions.

I have a hard time believing they could possibly be that dense. I find it easier to believe they were paid to take a dive.

71
posted on 02/06/2013 7:10:50 AM PST
by Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)

His father didn’t become a US citizen until 2005 according to the following.

snip

Cruz brags about how his Cuban father fought with rebels supporting Fidel Castro against dictator Fulgencio Batista in the 1950s, before Castro announced that he was a communist. Rafael Cruz fled the country and graduated from the University of Texas at Austin, then moved to Canada to work in the oil fields near Alberta, where Ted Cruz was born. The family eventually moved to Houston, and his father became a U.S. citizen in 2005.

RE :”Akin and Mourdock were not. They blew easy election wins because they provided the jaw-droppingly stupid sound byte to allow the RAT b*st*rds to make the election about abortions for rape exceptions.”

An answer you might get to that here is ‘Well we should have made the election about rape exceptions as that is the #1 issue facing this country’.

My answer to that is that they trivialized life based social issues by handing Dems a reality commercial (of them) showing that so-cons dont even know the basic biology of a female’s reproductive systems, and completely nuked ‘their own’ prolife cause and made those who champion it the laughing stock of the country by becoming a caricature of them.

so-cons should despise them more than anyone Else rather than defend them.

73
posted on 02/06/2013 8:01:53 AM PST
by sickoflibs
(Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)

As a kid I used to watch Gilligans Island at Grandma's house and I remember explaining to her how every episode he screws up their weekly chance to get off the Island and go home, then they forgive him and forget about it till he does it again as he is just a good natured fool (show character)

So she asks me "Cant they tie him up till they are rescued??"

74
posted on 02/06/2013 8:16:40 AM PST
by sickoflibs
(Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)

I don't necessarily hold common garden variety stupidity against politicians or anyone else for that matter. We're all stupid about something. Try asking me for men's fashion tips, f'rinstance.

Of course, I have the sense not to talk about men's fashion tips.

Since I grew up on a farm and my Dad was a veterinarian, I probably know a lot about female reproductive systems. If you can get past the sheer stupidity of the context of Akin and Mourdock's comments, what they said was even mostly correct. There was a popular statistic tossed around at the time that fully one-third of rapes resulted in pregnancies. That's pure bull hockey, because if it were true, and consensual intercourse resulted in about the same rate (it is actually higher for reasons discussed at that time back in August), then Mrs. Vigilanteman should have been pregnant close to 1000 times, rather than three times.

None of this is the point. These nimrods lost the argument, lost the election and did untold damage to other GOP candidates the moment they allowed themselves to be dragged into that swamp. It was 1000 times worse than George Allen's infamous maccaca moment.

75
posted on 02/06/2013 8:59:31 AM PST
by Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)

There are still more than a few here who claim those should be our model candidates., one recently told me it is *our* fault they lost, if only *we* defended them better they would have won, not kidding.

Seriously folks there is middle ground between supporting establishment RINOs and putting crowns on the heads of whatever amateur screams the loudest that they are King or Queen of the Tea party.

Akin was my pick in that primary. A FRiend was warning he was not ready for prime time. I argued about him with it “why isn’t Akin a first tier candidate?” but he turned out to be right.

He flat out cost us a seat by refusing to quit after he was no longer viable (the reason why he couldn’t win is irrelevant, he couldn’t win so he should’ve quit, he could have had a future, now his career is an elected official is over)

Those of in the know warned about Angle because of her history of losing races. Like when she lost a GOP House primary and whined for a re-vote (not a recount). Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkainian would be in the Senate right now. But Angle conned enough people for her to win the primary.

Mourdock is different cause he was running against an elderly RINO incumbent and as a twice elected State Treasurer who would have thought he’d run such a lousy race? Very disappointing.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.